Clinical Investigation: Late Effect Incidence of Second Malignancies Among Patients Treated With Proton Versus Photon Radiation Radiation Oncology

Summary This study represents the first comparative analysis of second cancer incidence rates for cohorts treated with proton or photon radiation. We compared the incidence of second cancers in 558 patients treated with proton radiation with a matched Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cohort of 558 photontreated patients. After we adjusted for sex, age at treatment, primary site, and year of diagnosis, proton therapy was not associated with an increased risk of second malignancy (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.52; PZ.009). Purpose: Proton radiation, when compared with photon radiation, allows delivery of increased radiation dose to the tumor while decreasing dose to adjacent critical structures. Given the recent expansion of proton facilities in the United States, the long-term sequelae of proton therapy should be carefully assessed. The objective of this study was to compare the incidence of second cancers in patients treated with proton radiation with a population-based cohort of matched patients treated with photon radiation. Methods and Materials: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 558 patients treated with proton radiation from 1973 to 2001 at the Harvard Cyclotron in Cambridge, MA and 558 matched patients treated with photon therapy in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program cancer registry. Patients were matched by age at radiation treatment, sex, year of treatment, cancer histology, and site. The main outcome measure was the incidence of second malignancies after radiation. Results: We matched 558 proton patients with 558 photon patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry. The median duration of follow-up was 6.7 years (interquartile range, 7.4) and 6.0 years (interquartile range, 9.3) in the proton and photon cohorts, respectively. The median age at treatment was 59 years in each cohort. Second malignancies occurred in 29 proton patients (5.2%) and 42 photon patients (7.5%). After we adjusted for sex, age at treatment, primary site, and year of diagnosis, proton therapy was not associated with an increased risk of second malignancy (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.52 [95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.85]; PZ.009). Conclusions: The use of proton radiation therapy was not associated with a significantly increased risk of secondary malignancies compared with photon therapy. Longer follow-up of these patients is needed to determine if there is a significant decrease in second malignancies. Given the limitations of the study, these results should be viewed as hypothesis generating.

Achieving gender equity in the radiation oncology physician workforce

There is currently much interest in identifying and mitigating gender inequity within medicine, the greater workforce and society as a whole. We provide an evidence-based review of current and historical trends in gender diversity in the RO physician workforce and identify potential barriers to diversity and inclusion in training, professional development, and career advancement. Next, we move to actionable items, addressing methods to mitigate bias, harassment, and other impediments to professional productivity and characterizing leadership lessons and imperatives for departmental, institutional, and organizational leaders

Analysis of patient outcomes following proton radiation therapy for retinoblastoma

Purpose: Proton radiation therapy (PRT) is used to treat patients with retinoblastoma (RB) and has the potential to minimize exposure of normal tissue to radiation and thus decrease the risk of toxicity and second malignancies. However, comprehensive analyses of long-term patient outcomes are not available. Methods and materials: Patients with RB who were treated with PRT at our institution between 1986 and 2012 were invited to participate in a study that was designed to assess long-term outcomes. Patients who were enrolled in the study underwent a comprehensive analysis that included oncologic, ophthalmic, endocrine, cephalometric, and quality of life (QOL) assessments. Results: A total of 12 patients were enrolled in this study. The average length of follow-up was 12.9 years (range, 4.8-22.2 years). All study patients had bilateral disease, and the disease and visual outcomes were similar to the outcomes for all patients with RB who were treated with PRT over the same time period at our institution. An analysis of endocrine-related test results revealed no growth abnormalities or hormonal deficiencies across the cohort. Magnetic resonance imaging scans and external cephalometry showed that PRT was associated with less facial hypoplasia than enucleation. Patient and parent-proxy QOL assessments revealed that treatment for RB did not appear to severely affect long-term QOL. Conclusions: In addition to providing an opportunity for long-term disease control and functional eye preservation, PRT does not appear to be associated with unexpected late visual, endocrine, or QOL effects in this cohort of patients with RB